Friday, December 29, 2006

Primitive man worshipped nature and imbued inanimate things with human qualities. So do environmentalists.James Lovelock, one of the movement's godheads, and the godfather of the Gaia hypothesis, imbued the earth with mystical powers. The Lovelock-inspired concept of "planetary consciousness" is really a philosophical excrescence of animism, "the belief that natural objects, natural phenomena and the universe itself possess souls."(Column continues below)Nature worship is a form of this fetishism. Primitives worshipped idols and amulets but also conferred divine honor on the sun, moon, mountains, rivers, trees and animals; air, fire and water. Environmental animists à la Lovelock believe that to tamper with one aspect of the interlocking system of "organisms, surface rocks, oceans and atmosphere" is to tempt fate.To quote Lovelock's adoring acolytes at the New York Review of Books, this balance is now being disrupted by "our brief binge of fossil fuel consumption." Reduce ocean levels of algae and "teeming billions will perish," or so they say.Most of Lovelock's earlier gloomy predictions have not panned out, but this has done nothing to cool the reverence he receives from media. They, like Lovelock and his ilk, aim not to "save" men, but to subjugate them to Mother Earth. Indeed, major media have had a good reason for pushing apocalyptic climate-change theories for over a century."A global central planning authority is implicit in all potential international efforts to combat alleged global problems," explains economist George Reisman.Environmentalism is socialism revived; the Greens are the Reds incarnated.In his seminal work, "Capitalism," Reisman elaborates on the philosophical affinity between these maniacal movements: The Reds argued that "the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as 'exploitation,' 'monopoly' and depressions. The Greens claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity"; the Greens for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage."Republican Sen. James Inhofe recently traced the historical arc of media hysteria: "[F]or more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age."The Business and Media Institute, a valiant defender of the free market, is in agreement, after "conducting an extensive analysis of print media's climate change coverage back to the late 1800s." Its report, ""Fire and Ice," found that "the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again and, perhaps not so finally, warming":"Many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including the New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895."Warnings of an approaching ice age lasted well into the 1920s. Then, an imperceptible warming in the earth's surface saw the Times begin to blow hot air about global warming. This phase ended when, in the 1950s, Fortune magazine heralded an Ice Age. For some time, the Times remained suspended in journalistic permafrost but soon warmed, in 1975, to the idea of "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable," to quote its headline. Hot on the heels of this cold cycle, the paper joined the current crop of Chicken Littles to bewail global warming.That's right, not so long ago they clucked about global cooling; now they claim the sky is falling because of global warming.More fundamentally, theirs is, ultimately, an "argument" against continued economic progress. Be it warming or cooling, the goal is the same: Climate kooks want to scale back the market economy that is responsible for the magnificent living standards enjoyed in industrialized countries.To accomplish this unchanging ambition, these mutant Marxists have had to create a theory that can't be falsified – the kind of "theory" Karl Popper referred to as irrefutable. As Popper reminded us, "A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is," of course, "non-scientific."Thus evidence that contradicts the global warming theory, climate kooks enlist as evidence for the correctness of their theory; every permutation in weather patterns – warm or cold – is said to be a consequence of that warming or proof of it.Then again, a leap of faith is necessary if one is to sustain a belief that the specimen that designed the microchip and painted the Mona Lisa is no better than a monkey – a creature that has never created anything, lives in trees, throws coconuts and hoots to communicate.

Two analysts who have reconstructed money supply data after the Fed stopped publishing it argue a coming dollar collapse will set the stage for creating the amero as a North American currency to replace the dollar.The reconstructed M3 data – the broadest measure of money – published on econometrician Gary Kuever's website, NowAndFutures.com, shows M3 increased at a rate of 11 percent in May, compared to 9 percent when the Federal Reserve quit publishing M3 data earlier this year.Asked why the Fed decided to stop publishing M3 data, Kuever told WND, "The Fed probably wants to hide how much liquidity is being pumped into the market, and I expect the trend to keep pumping liquidity into the market will continue, especially since the economy is slowing down."

Friday, December 08, 2006

by Chuck Baldwin December 5, 2006In an interview with nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas recently discussed President Bush's support for the Military Commissions Act. During the interview, Paul said that "the law officially allows for citizen concentration camp facilities."Paul also warned that "the Military Commissions Act and the Defense Authorization Act . . . essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus."Paul continued by noting, "Right now we don't have concentration camps, but . . . the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus." He then said, "If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun?"Couple the implementation of the Military Commissions Act with the already-passed USA Patriot Act and all the legalities necessary to completely eviscerate America's constitutionally-protected liberties are in place. Think of it. Without firing a shot or dropping a bomb, President George W. Bush has done more to strip the American people of their liberties than all the world's despots and dictators combined!Consider further the recent statements of former house speaker Newt Gingrich. According to the (Manchester, NH) Union Leader, "Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday [Monday, Nov. 27] in Manchester said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism."Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a 'different set of rules' may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message."Of course, Mr. Gingrich did not say how he plans to reduce people's free speech rights. Neither did he say a word about the fact that our greatest potential for terrorism is coming in the form of an invasion of illegal aliens across our southern border, and that it has been the words and policies of one George W. Bush that have mostly contributed to this threat.Will someone please tell me how expunging the free speech of the American people is going to make the United States safer? And, pray tell, why are our brave troops fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, ostensibly to "promote democracy," if the same political leaders who sent them to the Middle East are working to shrink democracy here at home?Ladies and gentlemen, please wake up! Under the leadership of President George W. Bush, rights and freedoms that have been lost to you include your right to an attorney, your right to know the charges being levied against you, the right to a speedy trial, the right to trial by a jury of your peers, the right to not be subjected to torture, the right to not have your home and personal items searched and seized without warrant, the right to not have your personal conversations (including letters and email) intercepted without court order, and the right to not incriminate yourself, just to name a few. And now we learn that our government has authorized and is planning to build "concentration camp facilities."Furthermore, just because you or I have not yet been personally subjected to this tyranny, does not mean that we won't be! The seeds are already planted; the die is already cast. The time to act is not when you are being carted off to an "undisclosed location." By then, it is too late.Thank God for Congressman Ron Paul. If it weren't for him, there would be practically no one on Capitol Hill willing to sound the alarm for the American people. I wish someone could convince him to run for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. The GOP would never support his candidacy for president, but the CP would welcome him with open arms. And, given the American people's frustration with both major parties, a serious third party challenge is very possible in 2008.In the meantime, the power establishment in Washington, D.C., continues to undermine our Constitution and fritter away our freedoms.

NOTE: I was suspect, so checked the Act language itself. Sure enough, those that would have us believe it is meant for "alien" (non-US citizens) only, are missing that oddly in one key section the word alien is used. However, in another section which lays out the definition of "unlawful enemy combantants" the language is much more broad and does not use the narrowing clarifier of "alien."

A U.S. citizen may be an unlawful enemy combatant under section 948a.Section 948a(1) defines an unlawful enemy combatant as"(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces; or(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

Section 948b states that "[t]his chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants."

What confuses and allows some to claim citizens have nothing to be concerned further about is this clause, where again we see

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.'

So the MCA's procedures apply only to aliens; not to citizens. Nevertheless, Congress has declared that persons falling into the definition in 948a are unlawful enemy combatants whether they are aliens or citizens.Why does this matter, if the military commission procedures in the MCA don't apply to citizens? The answer is that the government might seek to detain citizens as unlawful enemy combatants using the new definition in section 948a.Hamdi v. Rumsfeld states that the President had authority to detain enemy combatants according to the laws of war based on a fairly narrow definition of the term "enemy combatant":for purposes of this case, the "enemy combatant" that [the government] is seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was " 'part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners' " in Afghanistan and who " 'engaged in an armed conflict against the United States' " there. Brief for Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized.The MCA greatly expands the definition of enemy combatants, because it greatly expands the definition of "unlawful enemy combatants." If the government may detain any enemy combatants, a fortiori it may detain unlawful ones. The new definition is fuzzy: it includes citizens who "materially support" hostilities against the U.S. or whom the DoD says are unlawful enemy combatants.Hamdi, however, states that citizens have the right under the Due Process Clause to contest their designation as enemy combatants. Because section 948a(1)(ii) purports to make determinations of enemy combatant status conclusive, it is unconstitutional to that extent. Moreover, some applications of "material support" in section 948(1)(i) would violate the Due Process Clause or the First Amendment.But even putting those cases to one side, the new definition is still troubling: there would be many cases where the new definition is not otherwise unconstitutional but sweeps up people who pose no serious threat to national security. For example, suppose a person knowingly lets an al Qaeda operative stay at their house overnight. That person may be in violation of federal law, but it's hardly clear that the government should have the right to detain such a person indefinitely in a military prison without Bill of Rights protections until the end of the War on Terror, whenever that is. The problem with 948a(1) is that it may place Congress's stamp of approval on a definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" that is far too broad and that allows the government to move a wide swath of citizens outside of the normal procedural protections of the criminal justice system and into a parallel system where the Bill of Rights does not apply.One last point: Section 7(a) of the MCA strips habeas and federal court jurisdiction with respect to aliens. It does not strip jurisdiction with respect to citizens.However, what if the DoD determines that a U.S. citizen is an alien in a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, claims that its determination is conclusive under section 948a(1)(ii) and ships the person off to Guantanamo? As I noted before, section 948a(1)(ii) is probably unconstitutional to the extent that it suggests that DoD determinations are conclusive. The citizen should still have the right to prove that he is a citizen in a habeas proceeding, and a court must determine that question in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction. To the extent that the MCA would prevent such a determination, it is unconstitutional.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Stratfor: Geopolitical Intelligence Report - November 29, 2006>>> Russia's Interest in Litvinenko>> By George Friedman>> The recent death of a former Russian intelligence agent, Alexander> Litvinenko, apparently after being poisoned with polonium-210,> raises three interesting questions. First: Was he poisoned by the> Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), the successor to the KGB?> Second: If so, what were they trying to achieve? Third: Why were> they using polonium-210, instead of other poisons the KGB used in> the past? In short, the question is, what in the world is going on?>> Litvinenko would seem to have cut a traditional figure in Russian> and Soviet history, at least on the surface. The first part of his> life was spent as a functionary of the state. Then, for reasons> that are not altogether clear, he became an exile and a strident> critic of the state he had served. He published two books that made> explosive allegations about the FSB and President Vladimir Putin,> and he recently had been investigating the shooting death of a> Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who also was a critic of> the Putin government. Clearly, he was intent on stirring up trouble> for Moscow.>> Russian and Soviet tradition on this is clear: Turncoats like> Litvinenko must be dealt with, for two reasons. First, they> represent an ongoing embarrassment to the state. And second, if> they are permitted to continue with their criticisms, they will> encourage other dissidents -- making it appear that, having once> worked for the FSB, you can settle safely in a city like London and> hurl thunderbolts at the motherland with impunity. The state must> demonstrate that this will not be permitted -- that turncoats will> be dealt with no matter what the circumstances.>> The death of Litvinenko, then, certainly makes sense from a> political perspective. But it is the perspective of the old Soviet > Union -- not of the new Russia that many believed was being born,> slowly and painfully, with economic opening some 15 years ago. This> does not mean, however, that the killing would not serve a purpose> for the Russian administration, in the current geopolitical> context.>> For years, we have been forecasting and following the> transformation of Russia under Vladimir Putin. Putin became> president of Russia to reverse the catastrophe of the Yeltsin> years. Under communism, Russia led an empire that was relatively> poor but enormously powerful in the international system. After the> fall of communism, Russia lost its empire, stopped being enormously> powerful, and became even poorer than before. Though Westerners> celebrated the fall of communism and the Soviet Union, these turned> out to be, for most Russians, a catastrophe with few mitigating> tradeoffs.>> Obviously, the new Russia was of enormous benefit to a small class> of entrepreneurs, led by what became known as the oligarchs. These> men appeared to be the cutting edge of capitalism in Russia. They> were nothing of the sort. They were simply people who knew how to> game the chaos of the fall of communism, figuring out how to> reverse Soviet expropriation with private expropriation. The> ability to turn state property into their own property represented> free enterprise only to the most superficial or cynical viewers.>> The West was filled with both in the 1990s. Many academics and> journalists saw the process going on in Russia as the painful birth> of a new liberal democracy. Western financial interests saw it as a> tremendous opportunity to tap into the enormous value of a> collapsing empire. The critical thing is that the creation of> value, the justification of capitalism, was not what was going on.> Rather, the expropriation of existing value was the name of the> game. Bankers loved it, analysts misunderstood it and the Russians> were crushed by it.>> It was this kind of chaos into which Putin stepped when he became> president, and which he has slowly, inexorably, been bringing to> heel for several years. This is the context in which Litvinenko's> death -- which, admittedly, raises many questions -- must be> understood.>> The Andropov Doctrine>> Let's go back to Yuri Andropov, who was the legendary head of the> KGB in the 1970s and early 1980s, and the man who first realized> that the Soviet Union was in massive trouble. Of all the> institutions in the world, the KGB alone had the clearest idea of> the condition of the Soviet Union. Andropov realized in the early> 1980s that the Soviet economy was failing and that, with economic> failure, it would collapse. Andropov knew that the exploitation of> Western innovation had always been vital to the Soviet economy. The> KGB had been tasked with economic and technical espionage in the> West. Rather than developing their own technology, in many> instances, the Soviets innovated by stealing Western technology via> the KGB, essentially using the KGB as an research and development> system. Andropov understood just how badly the Soviet Union needed> this innovation and how inefficient the Soviet kleptocracy was.>> Andropov engineered a new concept. If the Soviet Union was to> survive, it had to forge a new relationship with the West. The> regime needed not only Western technology, but also Western-style> management systems and, above all, Western capital. Andropov> realized that so long as the Soviet Union was perceived as a> geopolitical threat to the West and, particularly, to the United > States, this transfer was not going to take place. Therefore, the> Soviet Union had to shift its global strategy and stop threatening> Western geopolitical interests.>> The Andropov doctrine argued that the Soviet Union could not> survive if it did not end, or at least mitigate, the Cold War.> Furthermore, if it was to entice Western investment and utilize> that investment efficiently, it needed to do two things. First,> there had to be a restructuring of the Soviet economy> (perestroika). Second, the Soviet system had to be opened to accept> innovation (glasnost). Andropov's dream for the Soviet Union never> really took hold during his lifetime, as he died several months> after becoming the Soviet leader. He was replaced by a nonentity,> Konstantin Chernenko, who also died after a short time in office.> And then there was Mikhail Gorbachev, who came to embody the KGB's> strategy.>> Gorbachev was clearly perceived by the West as a reformer, which he> certainly was. But less clear to the West were his motives for> reform. He was in favor of glasnost and perestroika, but not> because he rejected the Soviet system. Rather, Gorbachev embraced> these because, like the KGB, he was desperately trying to save the> system. Gorbachev pursued the core vision of Yuri Andropov -- and> by the time he took over, he was the last hope for that vision. His> task was to end the Cold War and trade geopolitical concessions for> economic relations with the West.>> It was a well-thought-out policy, but it was ultimately a desperate> one -- and it failed. In conceding Central Europe, allowing it to> break away without Soviet resistance, Gorbachev lost control of the> entire empire, and it collapsed. At that point, the economic> restructuring went out of control, and openness became the cover> for chaos -- with the rising oligarchs and others looting the state> for personal gain. But one thing remained: The KGB, both as an> institution and as a group of individuals, continued to operate.>> Saving the System: A Motive for Murder?>> As a young KGB operative, Vladimir Putin was a follower of> Andropov. Like Andropov, Putin was committed to the restructuring> of the Soviet Union in order to save it. He was a foot soldier in> that process.>> Putin and his FSB faction realized in the late 1990s that, however> lucrative the economic opening process might have been for some,> the net effect on Russia was catastrophic. Unlike the oligarchs,> many of whom were indifferent to the fate of Russia, Putin> understood that the path they were on would only lead to another> revolution -- one even more catastrophic than the first. Outside of> Moscow and St. Petersburg, there was hunger and desperation. The> conditions for disaster were all there.>> Putin also realized that Russia had not reaped the sought-after> payoff with its loss of prestige and power in the world. Russia had> traded geopolitics but had not gotten sufficient benefits in> return. This was driven home during the Kosovo crisis, when the> United States treated fundamental Russian interests in the Balkans> with indifference and contempt. It was clear to Putin by then that> Boris Yeltsin had to go. And go he did, with Putin taking over.>> Putin is a creation of Andropov. In his bones, he believes in the> need for a close economic relationship with the West. But his> motives are not those of the oligarchs, and certainly not those of> the West. His goal, like that of the KGB, is the preservation and> reconstruction of the Russian state. For Putin, perestroika and> glasnost were tactical necessities that caused a strategic> disaster. He came into office with the intention of reversing that> disaster. He continued to believe in the need for openness and> restructuring, but only as a means toward the end of Russian power,> not as an end in itself.>> For Putin, the only solution to Russian chaos was the reassertion> of Russian value. The state was the center of Russian society, and> the intelligence apparatus was the center of the Russian state.> Thus, Putin embarked on a new, slowly implemented policy. First,> bring the oligarchs under control; don't necessarily destroy them,> but compel them to work in parallel with the state. Second,> increase Moscow's control over the outlying regions. Third,> recreate a Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union.> Fourth, use the intelligence services internally to achieve these> ends and externally to reassert Russian global authority.>> None of these goals could be accomplished if a former intelligence> officer could betray the organs of the state and sit in London> hurling insults at Putin, the FSB and Russia. For a KGB man trained> by Andropov, this would show how far Russia had fallen. Something> would have to be done about it. Litvinenko's death, seen from this> standpoint, was a necessary and inevitable step if Putin's new> strategy to save the Russian state is to have meaning.>> Anomaly>> That, at least, is the logic. It makes sense that Litvinenko would> have been killed by the FSB. But there is an oddity: The KGB/FSB> have tended to use poison mostly in cases where they wanted someone> dead, but wanted to leave it unclear how he died and who killed> him. Poison traditionally has been used when someone wants to leave> a corpse in a way that would not incur an autopsy or, if a normal> autopsy is conducted, the real cause of death would not be> discovered (as the poisons used would rapidly degrade or leave the> body). When the KGB/FSB wanted someone dead, and wanted the world> to know why he had been killed -- or by whom -- they would use two> bullets to the brain. A professional hit leaves no ambiguity.>> The use of polonium-210 in this case, then, is very odd. First, it> took a long time to kill Litvinenko -- giving him plenty of time to> give interviews to the press and level charges against the Kremlin.> Second, there was no way to rationalize his death as a heart attack> or brain aneurysm. Radiation poisoning doesn't look like anything> but what it is. Third, polonium-210 is not widely available. It is> not something you pick up at your local pharmacy. The average> homicidal maniac would not be able to get hold of it or use it.>> So, we have a poisoning that was unmistakably deliberate.> Litvinenko was killed slowly, leaving him plenty of time to confirm> that he thought Putin did it. And the poison would be very> difficult to obtain by anyone other than a state agency. Whether it> was delivered from Russia -- something the Russians have denied --> or stolen and deployed in the United Kingdom, this is not something> to be tried at home, kids. So, there was a killing, designed to> look like what it was -- a sophisticated hit.>> This certainly raises questions among conspiracy theorists and> others. The linkage back to the Russian state appears so direct> that some might argue it points to other actors or factions out to> stir up trouble for Putin, rather than to Putin himself. Others> might say that Litvinenko was killed slowly, yet with an obvious> poisoning signature, so that he in effect could help broadcast the> Kremlin's message -- and cause other dissidents to think seriously> about their actions.>> We know only what everyone else knows about this case, and we are> working deductively. For all we know, Litvinenko had a very angry> former girlfriend who worked in a nuclear lab. But while that's> possible, one cannot dismiss the fact that his death -- in so> public a manner -- fits in directly with the logic of today's> Russia and the interests of Vladimir Putin and his group. It is not> that we know or necessarily believe Putin personally ordered a> killing, but we do know that, in the vast apparatus of the FSB,> giving such an order would not have been contrary to the current> inclinations of the leadership.>> And whatever the public's impression of the case might be, the> KGB/FSB has not suddenly returned to the scene. In fact, it never> left. Putin has been getting the system back under control for> years. The free-for-all over economic matters has ended, and Putin> has been restructuring the Russian economy for several years to> increase state control, without totally reversing openness. This> process, however, requires the existence of a highly disciplined> FSB -- and that is not compatible with someone like a Litvinenko> publicly criticizing the Kremlin from London. Litvinenko's death> would certainly make that point very clear.

CNBC asked Previs whether he thought NAFTA was "working and doing enough."He replied: "Until it created a lot of illegal immigrants coming across the border. I don't know. You get the pros and cons on NAFTA. For some people it is a good thing, and for other people it has been a disaster."The speculation on the future of a new North American currency came amid a major U.S. dollar sell-off worldwide that began last week.Yesterday, the dollar also reached new multi-month low against the euro, breaking through the $1.30 per euro technical high that had held since April 2005.At the same time, the Chinese central bank set the yuan at 7.0402 per dollar, the highest level since Beijing established a new currency exchange system in 2005 that severed China's previous policy of tying the value of the yuan to the U.S. dollar.Many analysts worldwide attributed the dramatic fall in the value of the U.S. dollar at least partially to China's announcement last week that it would seek to diversify its foreign exchange currency holdings away from the U.S. dollar. China recently has crossed the threshold of holding $1 trillion in U.S. dollar foreign-exchange reserves, surpassing Japan as the largest holder in the world.Barry Ritholtz, chief market strategist for Ritholtz Research & Analytics in New York City, in a phone interview with WND, characterized today's downward move of the dollar as "wackage," a new word he coined to convey that the dollar is being "whacked" in this current market movement.Ritholtz told WND that yesterday's downward move "was a major market correction that points to the risk of subsequent downside to the dollar."Asked whether he would characterize the dollar's downside move as signaling a possible collapse, Mr Ritholtz told WND, "Not yet."Ritholtz pointed out market professionals had long looked at a dollar collapse as a "low probability event," but the recent fall suggests "the probabilities have increased of a major dollar correction, or even of a collapse."U.S. trade imbalances with China have hit a record $228 billion this year, largely reflecting a surging flow of containers from China with retail goods headed for the U.S. mass market.Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez is in Bejing leading a trade delegation of more than two dozen U.S. business executives."The future should be focused on exporting to China," Guiterrez told reporters in Bejing, noting that this year, U.S. exports to China are up 34 percent on a year-to-year basis, surpassing last year's gain of 20 percent.One way to improve the U.S. trade imbalance may be to ease up on restrictions of exporting high-tech products and allowing technology transfers to China, a move likely to be politically charged in the U.S.The decline in value of the dollar will also make U.S. exports more attractive and Chinese exports to the U.S. more expensive.In February 2007, a virtually unprecedented top-level U.S. economic mission is scheduled to travel to China. Included in the mission are Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr., Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.Previs declined to be interviewed for this article, telling WND in an e-mail he did not want to be quoted directly in any article that may express a political point of view.

Monday, November 20, 2006

President Bush's decision to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with Robert M. Gates signals to experienced Iran observers that the Bush White House is about to shift direction once again in Iranian foreign policy, moving back to the type of "constructive engagement" strategy that typified the failed Clinton administration policy toward Iran as originated by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.The nomination also suggests stronger Council on Foreign Relations influence on White House thinking than previously recognized.What is the evidence for these conclusions? In 2004, Gates co-chaired, along with Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Council on Foreign Relations task force report entitled, "Iran: Time for a New Approach." Brzezinski was best known for his role as national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. The main point of the Gates- Brzezinski task force was to advocate a policy of "limited or selective engagement with the current Iranian government."(Column continues below)The language of the Gates- Brzezinski task force could easily have been drawn directly from the foreign policy of Carter as advised by Brzezinski, Clinton under Madame Albright's tutelage, or even Richard Nixon as counseled by Henry Kissinger. Consider the following:A political dialogue with Iran should not be deferred until such a time as the deep differences over Iranian nuclear ambitions and its invidious involvement with regional conflicts have been resolved. Rather, the process of selective political engagement itself represents a potentially effective path for addressing those differences. Just as the United States maintains a constructive relationship with China (and earlier did so with the Soviet Union) while strongly opposing certain aspects of its internal and international policies, Washington should approach Iran with a readiness to explore areas of common interests, while continuing to contest objectionable policies.The expected result of the constructive engagement would be to bring Iran into a constructive international dialogue designed to resolve differences. Again, here is the language from the task force report:Ultimately, any real rapprochement with Tehran can only occur in the context of meaningful progress on the most urgent U.S. concerns surrounding nuclear weapons, terrorism and regional stability.Instead of arriving at the type of "grand bargain" with Iran that John Kerry pressed during his failed 2004 presidential campaign, the Gates-Brzezinski CFR task force called for "selectively engaging Iran on issues where U.S. and Iranian interests converge."The growing CFR influence on the Bush foreign policy is consistent with the growing influence of Kissinger on the Bush White House. Kissinger is a CFR luminary who the administration now acknowledges has been a recent frequent guest at the White House for private talks with the president. Another CFR notable, James Baker III, is now heading Bush's Iraq Study Team.With the appointment of Condoleezza Rice, a James Baker protégé, to be secretary of state at the start of Bush's second term, the administration changed policy to support negotiations with Iran to be led by the EU-3 of France, Germany and the UK, together with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Two years later, those negotiations have predictably stalled in the U.N. Security Council where permanent members Russia and China, both allies of Iran, have blocked any meaningful sanctions.That Iran under President Ahmadinejad has resumed uranium enrichment in open defiance of the EU-3, the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council should be abundant evidence that negotiations with Tehran will not succeed, unless the negotiations are premised on accepting Iran's asserted right "to pursue the full fuel cycle," which translates to accepting continued uranium enrichment by Iran on Iranian soil.Despite the failure of these negotiations, the Bush administration appears to be preparing for direct talks with Iran, designed to implement the strategy of constructive engagement.Notable on the Gates-Brzezinski CFR task force was Frank Carlucci, the former secretary of defense in the Reagan administration who went on to be a founding principal of the Carlyle Group. Financial ties between the Carlyle Group and both George H. W. Bush and Kissinger Associates serve as further backdrop for the interlacing relationships about to play out in the anticipated foreign policy shift the Bush administration is contemplating with regards to Iran.The appointment of Gates signals an end to any possibility of utilizing a strategy of engineering regime change within Iran, following the path President Reagan utilized to bring down the Soviet Union.Despite President Bush signing the Iran Freedom Support Act in September 2006, the State Department still has refused to make regime change the official U.S. policy toward Iran.The State Department also continues to sit upon the millions of dollars Sens. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., have inserted into legislation for the State Department to disburse to non-governmental organizations dedicated to supporting democracy movements within Iran.Today, the White House disclosed that consideration of the Gates nomination was seriously considered last weekend, giving context to reports coming out of Iran that talks with the U.S. would be considered.Responding to reports that U.S. and Iraqi officials have suggested U.S.-Iranian talks might take place on regional developments, Iran's foreign minister spokesman, Mohammad-Ali Hosseini, told reporters Monday that "if we receive any formal offer in this regard, we will consider it."Experienced Iran observers such as Amir Taheri have long counseled that negotiating with the Ahmadinejad regime is unlikely to produce anticipated favorable results. Rejecting a central tenet of the Gates-Brzezinski CFR task force report, Taheri argues that Ahmadinejad's presidency reflects a second phase of the Iranian revolution in which the Shiite regime anticipates regional dominance.Taheri notes that Iran under Ahmadinejad has continued to finance and re-arm both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza. Writing in the November 2006 issue of Commentary, Taheri makes a strong argument that internal divisions in Iran could even today be exploited by the type of regime change efforts the Reagan administration applied to topple the Soviet Union.While the Bush administration is likely to resist the conclusion, a shift of policy to engage in direct talks with Iran probably signals a Bush administration acceptance of Iran's continued progress toward nuclear weapons. Iran is unlikely to accept talks with the United States on any other basis than a "no conditions" acceptance of Tehran's current uranium enrichment program at Natanz.

A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned. The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts to try to boost relations with Beijing's communist-ruled military. The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations' militaries. Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China. The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend. According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26. The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the carrier group's planes. The Kitty Hawk battle group includes an attack submarine and anti-submarine helicopters that are charged with protecting the warships from submarine attack. According to the officials, the submarine is equipped with Russian-made wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles. The Kitty Hawk and several other warships were deployed in ocean waters near Okinawa at the time, as part of a routine fall deployment program. The officials said Chinese submarines rarely have operated in deep water far from Chinese shores or shadowed U.S. vessels. A Pacific Command spokesman declined to comment on the incident, saying details were classified. Pentagon spokesmen also declined to comment. The incident is a setback for the aggressive U.S.-China military exchange program being promoted by Adm. Fallon, who has made several visits to China in recent months in an attempt to develop closer ties. However, critics of the program in the Pentagon say China has not reciprocated and continues to deny U.S. military visitors access to key facilities, including a Beijing command center.

In contrast, Chinese military visitors have been invited to military exercises and sensitive U.S. facilities. Additionally, military intelligence officials said Adm. Fallon has restricted U.S. intelligence-gathering activities against China, fearing that disclosure of the activities would upset relations with Beijing. The restrictions are hindering efforts to know more about China's military buildup, the officials said. "This is a harbinger of a stronger Chinese reaction to America's military presence in East Asia," said Richard Fisher, a Chinese military specialist with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, who called the submarine incident alarming. "Given the long range of new Chinese sub-launched anti-ship missiles and those purchased from Russia, this incident is very serious," he said. "It will likely happen again, only because Chinese submarine captains of 40 to 50 new modern submarines entering their navy will want to test their mettle against the 7th Fleet." Pentagon intelligence officials say China's military buildup in recent years has produced large numbers of submarines and surface ships, seeking to control larger portions of international waters in Asia, a move U.S. officials fear could restrict the flow of oil from the Middle East to Asia in the future. Between 2002 and last year, China built 14 new submarines, including new Song-class vessels and several other types, both diesel- and nuclear-powered. Since 1996, when the United States dispatched two aircraft carrier battle groups to waters near Taiwan in a show of force, Beijing also has bought and built weapons designed specifically to attack U.S. aircraft carriers and other warships. "The Chinese have made it clear that they understand the importance of the submarine in any kind of offensive or defensive strategy to deal with a military conflict," an intelligence official said recently. In late 2004, China dispatched a Han-class submarine to waters near Guam, Taiwan and Japan. Japan's military went on emergency alert after the submarine surfaced in Japanese waters. Beijing apologized for the incursion. The Pentagon's latest annual report on Chinese military power stated that China is investing heavily in weapons designed "to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific." It could not be learned whether the U.S. government lodged a protest with China's government over the incident or otherwise raised the matter in official channels.

Friends of Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian defector, told The Sunday Telegraph last night of their horror at seeing him in hospital after he was poisoned.

Boris Berezovsky, the exiled Russian billionaire who has known Mr Litvinenko for 10 years, accused President Vladimir Putin of being behind the attack.Mr Berezovsky, who visited his friend in hospital on Friday, said: "I couldn't believe it because he looked 10 years older than the last time I saw him and that was only a couple of weeks ago. He has lost all his hair and is completely bald."Mr Berezovsky has no doubts that his friend was targeted by agents on behalf of Mr Putin."I know people in Britain find it difficult to believe that someone who is a leader of a G8 country and someone who struts across the world stage as a democrat could order something like this to be done," he said. "But people need to understand he is a bandit."advertisementScotland Yard is investigating how Mr Litvinenko, a former colonel in the Russian secret service and a fierce critic of Mr Putin, was poisoned. The 50-year-old, who used to work for the Federal Security Bureau (FSB, the former KGB), is feared to be the latest victim of the Russian government.Mr Litvinenko is believed to have been targeted when he met a female journalist at Itsu, a Japanese restaurant in Piccadilly, London. She claimed to have information on the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, 48, the outspoken journalist who was shot dead at her Moscow apartment last month. Mr Litvinenko is thought to have been poisoned with thallium, a colourless and odourless liquid that is used to kill rats.The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that he was examined in hospital by Professor John Henry, a British toxicologist who two years ago was one of the first to confirm that Viktor Yushchenko, the Ukrainian president, had been poisoned during the election campaign. After being poisoned, Mr Yushchenko's face blistered violently.Mr Litvinenko, who defected six years ago and became a British citizen last month, fell ill soon after meeting his contact on November 1 and has been transferred from one London hospital to another.His friends believe the woman he met may have been a genuine contact. However, they suspect opponents discovered the venue for their meeting and slipped the poison into his food or drink before or during his meal.A friend said: "Alexander cannot be certain he was poisoned in the restaurant but that is the most likely scenario." There is no suggestion that Itsu or its staff are involved.The poisoning of Mr Litvinenko has echoes of the killing of Georgi Markov, the Bulgarian defector, who was poisoned by a pellet inserted into his leg from the tip of an umbrella in London in 1978.A respected source in Moscow said: "The Russian government consider Litvinenko to be an enemy and a traitor. He is a critic of the president and has questioned whether the Chechens were really behind the Moscow apartment bombings of 1999 which killed 300 people." The bombings were blamed on Chechen rebels, prompting Mr Putin to order an assault on the Chechen capital, Grozny, which left thousands dead.Mr Litvinenko came to prominence at a press conference in Moscow in 1998. Flanked by colleagues who concealed their identities with balaclavas, he claimed that the KGB had been ordered to assassinate Mr Berezovsky, who had helped in Mr Putin's rise to power.In 2002, during his absence, Mr Litvinenko was convicted of abuse of office and given a suspended sentence of three and a half years.Russians who speak out against Mr Putin's administration – especially journalists – fear for their lives. When Ms Politkovskaya was gunned down in the lift of her apartment block in Moscow last month, she was the 13th journalist to be murdered. She ran a relentless campaign exposing corruption in the army and its brutal reign in Chechnya.Since her assassination, the Committee to Protect Journalists has disclosed that Russia has become the third most dangerous place in the world to work: only in Iraq and Algeria have more reporters been murdered. What is perhaps more chilling is that not one of the 13 murders of journalists has been solved.When Mr Putin came to power he declared: "Our press is free and forever will be." The honeymoon did not last. Instead of following a path to democracy, Mr Putin, a former head of the KGB, has reasserted the centralised Kremlin control of the Soviet era.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

China helped North Korea develop nuclear weapons and in the past year increased its support to Pyongyang, rather than pressing the regime to halt nuclear arms and missile activities, according to a congressional report. The final draft report of the U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission also says that Chinese government-run companies are continuing to threaten U.S. national security by exporting arms to American enemies in Asia and the Middle East. The report is based on public testimony and highly classified intelligence reports made available to its members and staff. It indirectly criticizes the Bush administration for failing to pressure Beijing into joining U.S.-led anti-proliferation programs and calls for Congress to take action to force the administration to do more. "China has contributed at least indirectly to North Korea's nuclear program," the report stated, noting that China was a "primary supplier" to Pakistan's nuclear-arms program. A copy of the commission's final draft report, due to be released formally next month, was made available to The Washington Times by congressional aides. Congress created the bipartisan commission of outside experts in 2000 to analyze the impact of U.S.-China relations on security and the economy. North Korea was a recipient of nuclear goods supplied by the covert Pakistani nuclear supplier network headed by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, according to the group's fourth annual report. Several links between Pakistan and North Korea's arms programs have been identified, it stated. The unclassified version of the report does not include details of the Chinese support but notes that China has "a history" of helping North Korea develop its weapons. According to U.S. intelligence officials, North Korean front companies operate freely in China and have used China as a transit point for trade in missile and nuclear components. One North Korean nuclear procurement agent was identified by U.S. officials in 2002 as Yun Ho-jin, who while working in Shenyang, China, sought to buy metal rods with nuclear applications in Germany while posing as an official of the Chinese aircraft manufacturer Shenyang Aircraft Corp. Also, Chinese language documents on how to design a small nuclear warhead for a missile were discovered by U.S. intelligence officials in Libya after Tripoli agreed to dismantle its nuclear program. China's government has not explained how the warhead documents reached Libya. U.S. officials think the warhead documents likely were sold by the Khan network and were also supplied to Iran and North Korea. On China's failure to pressure North Korea, the commission report said that China has refused to exert economic pressure and "instead has actually increased its assistance and trade with North Korea." Disclosure of the report comes as China last week refused to join the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which the Bush administration hopes to use in enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions aimed at halting North Korean trade in illicit arms-related goods. The Chinese turned down an appeal from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her recent visit to Beijing to join PSI. The refusal raises questions about whether China will cooperate in a United Nations embargo against weapons and technology going in and out of North Korea. Administration officials have praised China for supporting U.S. efforts to curb North Korea's arms programs. However, the report makes clear that Chinese cooperation is limited. On China's role in arms proliferation, the report stated that Chinese companies and government organizations "continue to provide weapons, weapons components and weapons technology" in violation of China's commitments to international nonproliferation agreements. The arms transfers "harm regional security in East Asia and the Middle East," the report said. "Given strong U.S. interests in both regions, China's proliferation threatens U.S. security and potentially could place at risk U.S. troops operating in those regions," the report said. The report also raises questions about whether China is willing to play a responsible role in working for global peace and stability. Beijing's support for World Trade Organization commitments is "spotty and halting," it said. "And China's apparent willingness to value its own energy needs above the needs of international security is indicative of a nation as yet unprepared or unwilling to shoulder the burdens of a stakeholder state," it said. The report recommends that Congress take steps to pressure China into joining the PSI, and calls on Congress to press President Bush to force China to carry out both sea and land inspections of weapons related goods going in and out of North Korea under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718. The report recommends tightening sanctions on Chinese companies engaged in illicit arms sales, and says Congress should also require the president to provide regular reports identifying what actions China has taken to curb North Korean and Iranian nuclear activities.

WASHINGTON – Rep. Ron Paul, a maverick Republican from Texas, today denounced plans for the proposed "NAFTA superhighway" in his state as part of a larger plot for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American Union."By now many Texans have heard about the proposed 'NAFTA Superhighway,' which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor," he said in a statement. "What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention."Paul explained that most members of Congress are unaware of the plans because only relatively small amounts of money have been spent studying the plans and those allocations were included in "enormous transportation appropriations bills."(Story continues below)"The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,' or SPP," he explains. "The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco."No treaties were involved, and Congress was not included in discussions or plans, he says."Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments," according to Paul. "One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don't be fooled: The superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically connected interests."Paul says, however, the real issue raised by the superhighway plan and the SPP is national sovereignty."Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress," says Paul. "Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade."The ultimate goal, he says, is not simply a superhighway "but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy and virtually borderless travel within the union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S. should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union."I wholeheartedly support this legislation and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election," says Paul. "Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight – and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty."

About 1,000 documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America show the White House is engaging in collaborative relations with Mexico and Canada outside the U.S. Constitution, says WND columnist and author Jerome Corsi."The documents give clear evidence that the Bush administration has created a 'shadow government,'" Corsi said.The documents can be viewed here, on a special website set up by the Minuteman Project.Bureaucrats from agencies throughout the Bush administration are meeting regularly with their counterpart bureaucrats in the Canadian and Mexican governments to engage in a broad rewriting of U.S. administrative law and regulations into a new trilateral North American configuration, Corsi contends.

"We have hundreds of pages of e-mails from U.S. executive branch administrators who are copying the e-mail to somewhere between 25 to 100 people, a third of whom are in the U.S. bureaucracy, a third of whom are in the Mexican bureaucracy and a third of whom are in the Canadian bureaucracy," said Corsi."They are sharing their laws and regulations so we can 'harmonize' and 'integrate' our laws into a North American structure, not a USA structure."Corsi claims the process is well along the way."This is totally outside the U.S. Constitution, virtually an executive branch coup d'etat," he said. "SPP is creating new trilateral memoranda of understanding and mutual agreements which should be submitted to Senate for two-thirds votes as international treaties."Corsi said the documentation he received is missing key pieces."We received very few actual agreements, though many are referenced," he said. "Many of the work plans described lack the work products which the groups say they produced."

by Kevin Eggers, Napa Valley RegisterMonday, October 30, 2006 10:32 President Bush and Congress have implemented a plan to create a North American Union, which will become an open border policy between the United States, Canada and Mexico.This is a plan, similar to the European Union, in which the security (primarily from the ocean borders), infrastructure, laws and economies of the three countries will become intertwined, with the United States citizens paying, not only monetarily, but also with our freedom and our sovereignty. We will have the shell of our Constitution with international laws controlling it. The official government name is the "Security Prosperity Partnership of North America," the SPP, which was initiated on March 23, 2005, with a meeting between President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, in Waco, Texas. Work groups are now far into the process with the latest forum on Sept. 12 through Sept. 14, with Donald Rumsfeld and top security experts discussing security, infrastructure and integration.Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, has e-mailed me that he does support the SPP, and implied that this is now policy.Lou Dobbs, CNN anchor, had this to say about the SPP during a broadcast in 2005: "Tonight, an astonishing proposal to expand our borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada and simultaneously further diminish U.S. sovereignty. Have our political elites gone mad? We'll have a special report ... Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada ... You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I'm right when I said 'yes.' But this is -- I mean, this is beyond belief."The video can be found on the Internet. No other television station carried the news and CNN hasn't since.Where has the media been in reporting the SPP? The truth is that the "elites" have controlled all forms of major media for years. They choose the global-minded candidates they want (they control both parties), and use the media to endorse them. We only see candidates they want us to see. The "elites" tell the media what to propagandize and we form our public opinions on immigration, war, moral values, etc.David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, had this to say at a Bilderbergers Meeting in 1991: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications, whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."The "elites" are the foreign and domestic industrialists that control the Fed. Not one cent of our federal income tax goes toward government programs.In the United States, the "elites" work through the Council of Foreign Relations to implement their global agenda. The CFR has directed our foreign and domestic policies for more than 80 years, and influenced the formation of the United Nations, CIA and Trilateral Commission. Dr. Robert Pastor, a CFR member, authored the book, "Building a North American Community," which is the blueprint for the SPP.Among the more than 100 known CFR members working within top positions of government are Vice President Dick Cheney (former CFR director), Sens. Dianne Feinstein, John McCain, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, former presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush (former CFR director), former Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Press Secretary Tony Snow, three Supreme Court justices, many high-ranking military commanders, our CIA director, and five members of the 9/11 Commission. The CFR claims to have no affiliation with the United States government.In the mid-1930s, we created a nationalist socialist education system with an emphasis on teaching revisionist history, manipulating facts and concepts, putting more importance on shaping a child's way of thinking than on teaching. Each generation since has been subjected to more advanced manipulation. Every child must be mentally shaped to fit the mold of indoctrinated immoral ignorant socialist global sheep.Why isn't the truth about the CFR or our central banking system taught in schools?

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Al Gore, the former US vice-president, is bringing his user-generated content television channel to the UK, courtesy of James Murdoch’s British Sky Broadcasting.Mr Gore launched Current TV, the US channel made of clips created by viewers and producers, in August last year, and said that the channel was “democratising television.”ADVERTISEMENTMr Murdoch, who has claimed that BSkyB was the first media company in the world to go carbon neutral, and Mr Gore share their passion for the environment. Mr Murdoch invited Mr Gore to the gathering of News Corp’s executives at Pebble Beach, California, this summer.At Pebble Beach Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chief executive, urged News Corp officials to follow his son James’ lead and to try and tackle climate change issues.The pair have now come together to promote user generated content in the UK and Ireland. Current TV’s agreement for the channel to be carried on BSkyB’s satellite platform is its first international move outside the US.Mr Gore said that the channel was one of the few on the cable network to break even in the first year and was looking to make profits in the second year. He rejected suggestions that viewer created clips was about gaining cheap content.The deal with BSkyB brings Current TV to some 8m households. In the US, it is available in nearly 30m homes through cable and satellite television. With Current TV, viewers and producers upload their clips on to the channel’s website, where content which gets the most votes is broadcast on its television channel.Mr Gore compared Current TV to the introduction of the printing press in the 15th century, which led to enlightenment. He said: “The television medium for 50 years has had the depressing effect on the conversation of democracy by excluding individuals. But the new affordable digital tools of both cameras and digital video cameras and laptop editing systems now make it completely feasible for individuals with accessible training to participate in the conversation.”Mr Murdoch said that Mr Gore’s channel TV was “an elegant way” to marry user-generated content on the web to the broadcast medium. He said: “Current TV is bringing the web’s sense of empowerment to television for the first time.”

Republican officials are trying to turn back concerns that a plan to build a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border in an attempt to gain control of one area of illegal immigration still will fail.The denial came from the Republican National Committee, which said in a statement that the president is planning to sign the Secure Fence Act, which was approved by the House and Senate earlier."There has been some speculation in the blogosphere today that President Bush would not sign the Secure Fence Act, after signing a bill for funding border fencing last week," the RNC's Patrick Ruffini said. But that is incorrect, he said, and the president's intent remains the same.(Story continues below)Just a few days ago, a Homeland Security budget including $1.2 billion to begin construction of fences and other barriers was approved by both the House and the Senate and signed by Bush. However, the actual allocation of money for the work would come in the Secure Fence Act, which remains filed under pending, officials said.The concerns were raised in a number of venues.A writer, Vincent Gioia, on the New Media ChronWatch.com said that the Homeland Security package was approved and "with great fanfare, the president signed the bill."However, he said Congress and the president, "now, having mollified conservative critics with 'border protection first,'" probably feel free to deal with immigration as they want."Unfortunately, the claim of border protection beginning with the appropriation of over one billion dollars allegedly for that purpose is just a big hoax," he wrote. "Quickly following congressional funding authorization to construct 700 miles of Mexican border fence, and just before recessing, Congress enacted additional legislation to enable the president to thwart the will of most Americans who want to protect our Mexican border against illegal immigration."He said the additional legislation would allow the president to allocate the $1.2 billion ostensibly for the fence to other projects, such as "tactical infrastructure."He said Congress also promised that governors, local leaders and Native American tribes would be involved in the placement of any fence, and Congress also withheld $950 million pending a breakdown of how the money will be spent.In other words, the fence plan is for the headlines, but the fine print is where the projects are made or broken.In a significant indication that the fence is not the highest priority, just a day after signing the Homeland Security provision, Bush said granting citizenship to current illegal aliens still will be a needed part of any plan."You can't kick 12 million people out of your country," Bush said. "We must figure out a way to say to those that if you're lawful and if you've contributed to the United States of America, there is a way for you to eventually earn citizenship."Meanwhile, Mexico officials have been pursuing an intense lobbying campaign to try to kill the fence plan. They had asked Bush to veto it, and even have threatened to go to the United Nations with their opposition.Mexico Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said the fence plan is an "offense" and indicated the dispute could be brought before the U.N. Press Secretary Ruben Aguilar for President Vincente Fox, however, said in a report that wouldn't happen, but the fence wouldn't be built either.Derbez said there will be a storm of international community criticism against the U.S. fence plan, and that will stop it.Mexican officials have said they are recruiting various church and business groups in the U.S. to oppose fencing plans, and the government is broadcasting radio ads encouraging workers who have had a labor "accident" to pursue their rights in the U.S.Mexican activists are comparing the plan to the Berlin Wall.Republicans and immigration experts told the Washington Post that the House and Senate provided Bush enough leeway in the distribution of the money so that it may be spend on roads and technology too.When Homeland Security department spokesman Russ Knocke was asked about the construction of 700 miles of fencing, he was non-committal, instead noting that a $67 million "virtual fence" project will be tested.While another assurance came from Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who wrote the fence provisions that passed last year and said the bill provides the fence "shall" be built, the president wasn't so definitive.In his message when he signed the bill, he said the nearly $34 billion authorization for Homeland Security will "give us better tools to enforce our immigration laws and to secure our southern border.""The bill I sign today includes nearly $1.2 billion in additional funding for strengthening the border, for new infrastructure and technology that will help us do our job. It provides funding for more border fencing, vehicle barriers, and lighting, for cutting-edge technology, including ground base radar, infrared cameras, and advance sensors that will help prevent illegal crossings along our southern border. That's what the people of this country want. They want to know that we're modernizing the border so we can better secure the border," Bush said.Mexico-U.S. border"Yet, we must also recognize that enforcement alone is not going to work," he said. "We'll continue to work with Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that secures this border, upholds the laws, and honors our nation's proud heritage as a land of immigrants."U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, told the Houston Chronicle that the project has to be viewed in terms of the war on terror."The day will come when they attack us in Houston. I don't know why the terrorists haven't hit us, but it will come," he said.Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said the Secure Fence Act is an emergency measure to provide for those 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing."There were many skeptics when I first started discussing the potential dangers associated with illegal immigration, and called for our government to secure the borders," he said. "Tonight, we take another momentous step toward ensuring our security."But even he said the plan mandates a "virtual fence," not necessarily a physical one, that would involve remote cameras, ground sensors, aerial vehicles and surveillance technology.On one of the those blogs where questions were being raised, Mickey Kaus said that Bush's promise during an interview on CNN that the bill would be signed wasn't reassuring.The interviewer asked Bush if he would sign the plan."It's part of strengthening the border," he said. "And we're in the process now of spending the money that they appropriated last session to modernize the border.""So, will you sign it into law?" the interviewer asked."One thing that has changed is catch and release. Prior to the expenditure of the money … we would catch somebody trying to sneak in and just release them back into society. That's been ended," Bush said.Another commentator noted that House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Congress' effort along the border "culminated" in the appropriations plan Bush already signed."It would be crazy not to be paranoid," the commentator wrote.The same scenario developed early in 2006. The Senate had approved the installation of 370 miles of fencing and about 500 miles of vehicle barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, but then voted against allowing any money to do the work.Then just weeks later, senators reversed their July 13 position, approving a spending authorization on a 94-3 vote, with 66 senators switching from "no" to "yes," according to the The Washington Times.Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said back then that people heard from their constituents after voting for the project, but against money to do it.

What these misguided religious zealots conveniently fail to note is that nowhere in the New Testament or the other books of the Bible do Jesus Christ, His apostles, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, Moses or the Hebrew prophets command the government to take money from its citizens and transfer it to poor people. In fact, the Bible says just the opposite.God presents us with three general ways in the Bible to take care of the poor and needy: 1) through the family; 2) through the church; and 3) through individual charity. The applicable passages for these three ways are Deuteronomy 14:28, 29, Numbers 18:24, Matthew 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16.Now, the first two ways are pretty clear. People's first obligation is to the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned in their own families. Only after they do this do they have any obligation to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned through their local church organization. God established the pattern for this kind of church giving in Numbers 18:24 and Deuteronomy 14:28, 29. As David Chilton points out in his great book "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators," the bulk of Christian giving to the local church should be geared toward financing professional theologians, experts in biblical law and church discipline, teachers of God's word and leaders skilled in worship. It was only every third year that all the giving was set aside to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned. Even then, the money was not given just to anyone who showed up. Those able to work but don't do not qualify for help. Also, those who have families to take care of them don't qualify, nor do widows under age 60 qualify, according to the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 5:3-16.Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, talks about the third way in Matthew 6. He tells His listeners that they should give individual charity. He also says they should give such charity secretly: "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."In other words, Jesus is not a socialist. Nor is he a liberal. In fact, in none of the Bible passages just cited, nor in any others I know of, does Jesus, God or even Moses cite the government as the means by which the poor, needy, widowed and orphaned are housed, clothed and fed.Thus, a simple, straightforward reading of the Bible, God's Word, including the "Red Letter" words of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, clearly shows that the American welfare state is anti-Christian and unbiblical. Any Christian who advocates such a government welfare system (including clergymen or women) should be harshly rebuked. Furthermore, any members of any political party, including Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party members, Libertarians or whatever, who advocate such a socialist system yet claim to be Christian should be reprimanded by their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and by all church leaders.If any such party members refuse to repent and change their ways, then their names should be posted at their church and throughout the whole land so that all Christians in the United States can know not to vote for these people or place them in positions of authority and leadership. Of course, all Christians should encourage families to take care of their own. And they should also encourage their churches to give at least one-third of their gross income to help the poor, needy, widowed and orphaned.On that note, it is interesting to recall that the 10th Commandment in Exodus 20:17 actually protects private property by commanding people not to covet their neighbor's house or belongings. That commands applies to the average citizen as well as the elected official, the judge and all other government officials.Furthermore, the Bible condemns laziness and praises hard work. Proverbs 10:4 says, "Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth." Proverbs 14:23 says, "All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty."Finally, it is interesting to note that, in Mark 7:20-23, not only does Jesus Christ declare that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage, including homosexuality, pre-marital sex and adultery, is evil, he also declares that both greed and envy are evil. Thus, Jesus Christ condemns both the greed of the rich man as well as the greed of the poor man, and the envy of the poor man as well as the envy of the rich man.Thus, God condemns the politics of envy of the left, and he extols the virtues of hard work and capitalism, not just the value of charity!Liberals and socialists like the "Red Letter Christians," Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Ted Kennedy and former Vice President Al Gore are violating the commands of Jesus Christ, who is God in the Flesh. They are also violating the commands that God gives all of us in the Hebrew Scriptures as well. If they truly want to follow the words of Jesus in the New Testament, they should stop their opposition to the real Christian movement in America and join it. One of the first things they should do immediately is help cut government programs for the poor.Christians must stop the ungodly, immoral rape of American citizens with the totalitarian, socialist welfare state! They must establish a proper and godly system of family, church and private charity. Not just Christians, but all true Americans should follow God's clear guidance in this matter. God will reward us mightily for our obedience in these matters.